> Perhaps, crony prisons or quasi-public prisons? Very true, and equally applicable to many other "private" companies (Lockheed-Martin comes to mind). > How c

> Perhaps, crony prisons or quasi-public prisons? Very true, and equally applicable to many other "private" companies (Lockheed-Martin comes to mind). > How can this be true while tax payers are simultaneously footing the bill? Private prisons (that include inmate labor) charge from both ends: per-head to the taxpayer (ostensibly at a lower rate than if the state handled it in-house), and per-hour to businesses seeking cheap labor. State prisons have only the first incentive, with the countervailing force of finite tax revenue. Also, the prison guard unions have the same incentive to lobby (and/or support the lobbying of their parent corporation) regardless of who signs their checks. I would claim that union influence and lobbying is a constant in either case. > But when there are unions, and the jobs of union members depends on the number of prisoners, it becomes much less clear. Agreed. It is bad policy and a waste of taxes in either case.